[uClibc] uClibc 0.9.23 - build tool question

[Steve Dover]

tom at ceisystems.com wrote:
> Hello,
> 	Please forgive me for any punchyness...I've only had a couple
> hours of sleep in the past few days.  You really have to love wrapping
> up three projects at once, you really do.  Anyway, here's the info.
> 	The wrapper has been abolished and banished into the darc
> corners of previous versions.  For information regarding why, exactly, I
> went to the uClibc web site and used the google search option.  Type in
> "wrapper" and you'll find many posts.  Let's just consider the recent
> ones, say from october 2003 on.
> 	Ah, instantly I find my post and the replies to it on exactly
> this issue!  Here's the link:
> http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2003-October/007315.html.  You can
> see that there are many problems with using the wrapper, which we all
> knew about earlier.  We simply decided to live with it.
> 	So, in short, your solution is to build a real toolchain.  This
> brings us to your next question.  I think the link
> "http://www.uclibc.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/toolchain/" is rather
> self-explanatory.  I visited the link, surfed over to the 3.x directory
> there, and found that the Makefile had been modified within 9 hours.
> Seems pretty active, so I'm going to assume people are at least testing
> it.
> 	Anyway, I think we need a FAQ page.  I'd be willing to donate
> the 15 minutes to type it up if people want to send me the Q's and A's
> that are commonly discussed here.
> 
> Good luck,
> Thomas Cameron
> CEI Systems
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://uclibc.org/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
> 

OK, as a soon-to-be FAQ, will I be able to
build a gcc-2.95 toolchain anymore?  I really
need gcc-2.95 as gcc-3.x.x generates fat code.
It appears that the gcc-2.95 toolchain hasn't
been touched in a couple of months.  I'll try
it anyway, but I guess the real question is
what are the future plans for gcc-2.95 ?